Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 3

Alf Garnett. → Alf Garnett
The result of the debate was Keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a useless full stop in the title. Nothing links to it. I think this can safely go. Totnesmartin 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, which reminds me, I have to edit some of my YouTube video titles and remove the full stops from them. TheBlazikenMaster 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because the edit history of the two pages indicates that content of this page was merged into the target. We must keep the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL.   A history-merger is possible, but given the nature of the two pages and their state at the time of the merger, the history-merger would make the respective contributions less clear, not more.  The redirect is not doing any harm and does not appear to meet any of the "delete if" criteria above.  Rossami (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the merge tag resp. edit comment in the '.' history but it is not clear to me if and where something has actually been merged into Alf Garnett . Still better safe than sorry and it doesn't do harm anyway, so keep. --Tikiwont 08:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Defenders of the Internets → YTMND
The result of the debate was Delete. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this website defending exactly? Delete. TheBlazikenMaster 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can explain how this phrase is relevant to YTMND. --UsaSatsui 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest of the Internet from the evils of eBaum's World. But anyways, delete as pointless redirect. MessedRocker (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless. -- Avi 01:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Girlhood -> Girl
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The article doesn't talk about girlhood as opposed to adulthood. See Talk:Girl for details. Georgia guy 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Manhood redirects to Man, Womanhood redirects to Woman, etc.  This one's fine.  --UsaSatsui 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those are re-directs created by Voortle, the same Wikipedian who put Manhood on Afd. Up until Voortle created the re-direct, Manhood was an article of its own. Georgia guy 23:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that if someone searches for "girlhood" (unlikely, but possible) directing them to girl would be better than nothing. Rocket000 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. See above. I would consider a re-direct to Childhood. Moreover, do you see the word discussion instead of deletion in this page's name?? Georgia guy 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the Bloody Hell are you? → Bloody
The result of the debate was Redirect to So where the bloody hell are you?. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Useless redirect we don't redirect "Give me the goddamn money" to damnation, we don't redirect "Where the fucking hell are you" to fuck, so why the hell should we redirect this? TheBlazikenMaster 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. per nom. -- Avi 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The phrase 'where the bloody hell are you?' is a famous recent Australian tourism marketing phrase. Remy B 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless there is evidence that the advertising campaign is sufficiently notable that we can write a proper, well-sourced encyclopedia article on it, delete the redirect. Anyone looking for that exact phrase is going to be more frustrated by being taken to the general definition page than helped.  (And if we are going to have an article on the advertising campaign, a redlink is more likely to attract it than the redirect.)  Rossami (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems like someone has pre-empted your suggestion: So where the bloody hell are you? Remy B 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, change redirect to So where the bloody hell are you?. I don't feel like closing this discussion just yet. I mean, there is still a chance of disagreement. TheBlazikenMaster 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Chazara bish'ela → Yetzia bish'eila
The result of the debate was keep. In general, WP:NEO and WP:NOR (and many other article policies/guidelines) do not apply to redirects. Also, this discussion really should be going on at Talk:Yetzia bish'eila, as the term is actually mentioned at that article, and surprisingly, nobody seems to be disputing whether it should be there or not. If a term is mentioned in an article and that article is the only place where information on that term is located (as is in this case), then readers would probably expect to end up at that article if they type in the related term. Ignoring all of this, there still is not consensus to remove this redirect. --- RockMFR 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC) This term is a neoligism and violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR. The redirect was set up by User:Yidisheryid to create the impression that it "really" exists (as part of a long disagreement he is having at Talk:Baal teshuva.) There is no such term in Hebrew and the only reason he has constructed it now is to somehow create an equivalency between two opposite terms: "Yetzia bish'eila" which means "leaving Judaism with/because of questions" that is a group that opposes "chazara bit'shuva" which means "returning to Judaism in/with repentance" -- but the way the term "Chazara bish'ela" ("meaning return to Judaism with questions") is set up, confuses the two original differentiating terms by borrowing a word from each, the end result being confusion and the reduction to absurdity of all of them. This is pure WP:OR and in light of other actions by this user it borders on WP:DISRUPT IZAK 10:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for above reasons. IZAK 10:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. WP:POV, WP:NEO, WP:OR, only 3(!) google hits, and they are all to wiki, etc. Creator needs to be reminded that Wiki is not a soapbox for pushing fringe phenomena! -- Avi 11:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This isn't WP:NEO nor WP:NOR nor WP:POV nor WP:DISRUPT nor WP:OR. For Pete's sake this is a real name, all 3 wikipedias which are the closests to Jewish subjects 1. English 2. Hebrew 3. Yiddish, say this is its second most used and common name. Google gives us thousands of results with this name  The fact is a lot of people call it like this. And contrary to what the nominator is telling you i did not create this term, nor do i have any discussion with him about this, this was another user he refers to i only answered what the other user was saying. I have not edited at all those wiki articles, only the Yiddish one. A Redirect was made by me for the common second name should be a redirect to its main name because if people search for something in their own name, they should also be able to find it. That is exactly the purpose for what a redirect was created for in the first place.--יודל 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a term used by at least a few people, so why not have a redirect? --Eliyak T · C 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Yossiea (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the article is OR, but both it and the redirect are synonymous with each other. Both are Hebrew terms. Not a fringe movement because it is not a 'movement'. See Religious disaffilitation. --Shuki 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per IZAK and Avi; this is a neologism, and "returning to Judaism with questions" is not synonymous with "leaving Judaism with questions" (neither the Hebrew nor Yiddish article claims this either). -- M P er el 06:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has mentioned here about returning to Judaism with question and neither the Hebrew nor Yiddish and nor the English articles claim this either. Where have you found this? We only see 2 different things returning to Judaism with answers or returning away from it with questions. And those are indeed mentioned in all three Wikipedias the Hebrew the Yiddish and the English, and non of those articles claim that Chazara bish'ela is more neologism then the other name Yetzia bish'eila, they are both the same Initially Hebrew names, and like every subject that has 2 names one ends up as a redirect to the other--יודל 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you say that in simple, clear, English please. It makes no sense otherwise. IZAK 08:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What doesn't make sense?--יודל 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your whole paragraph above. IZAK 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was directed to MPerel, his assertion about returning to Judaism with question is non existing. The overall discussion stands that both names are the same, and both names should have been the header, since only one can be its header, then one should be a Redirect.--יודל 11:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Keep. Those are two synonymous and interchangeable Hebrew terms. None of them are neologisms and they are both often used for many years. Please discuss the subject matter at Talk:Yetzia bish'eila. --17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amire80 (talk • contribs)
 * You are pretty late for speedy, since this discussion opened nine days ago. TheBlazikenMaster 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vindows Wista → Windows Vista
The result of the debate was Delete. Mtmelendez (Talk 10:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense redirect. If you're looking Windows Vista, you don't 'accidentally' say "Vindows Wista."  TV -  VCR   watch  04:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong Delete - misspelling redirects are for common misspellings. This is not one of them. L337 kybldmstr 09:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not an accidental misspelling, but rather a voluntary one and as such a nickname for Windows Vista, that was used as reference in the blogosphere during its launch. Since it makes sense, is not confusing nor offensive, it should be kept. --Tikiwont 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a Google search reveals that for whatever reason, the term is (or at least was) actually used. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a rather small amount of results. Compare 404,000,000 with 1,750, and most of the results on/after page 2 start to get into unrelated stuff. --68.89.95.20 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. The google search stops at only 255 non-duplicative hits.  Delete as neither common nor non-obvious.  We do not want to encourage redirects for every possible spoonerism.  Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. -- Reaper  X  03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete i agree. its a slang for vista but dosn't make any sense --76.213.142.41 07:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a common mispelling. --Shirahadasha 00:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What next, Voy Ey --> Oy Vey? -- Avi 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightByWikimedia → Template:Non-free Wikimedia logo
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC) All of the old-style non-free content templates (like logo, software-screenshot, and poster) are being phased out in favor of templates that clearly indicate the image's non-free status (such as Non-free logo, Non-free software screenshot, and Non-free poster) per Non-free content/templates. This redirect is used on virtually no pages. Delete per precedent. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Template:Copyright by Wikimedia → Template:Non-free Wikimedia logo
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC) All of the old-style non-free content templates (like logo, software-screenshot, and poster) are being phased out in favor of templates that clearly indicate the image's non-free status (such as Non-free logo, Non-free software screenshot, and Non-free poster) per Non-free content/templates. This redirect is used on virtually no pages. Delete per precedent. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'